Can anyone explain to me how the state's Republican Senatorial candidates' health plans work? I see a combination of government paying for people's health care costs (basically a subsidy to the insurance industry) and a touting of tax shelters for money set aside for health costs (utterly useless for middle class folks with serious medical conditions). How would this help?
Apparently Tim Fox is hoping to win the state AG's office on the backs of sex offenders. Still no word on what he actually believes.
Democratic gubernatorial challenger, Don Pogreba, wrote an excellent op-ed about the state of education in Montana. Both the b'birds' jhwygirl and Montana Netroots' Shane Mason lauded the piece and extolled the blogger-cum-gubernatorial candidate's vision that education is an investment in our state's greatest resource - its people.
Republican gubernatorial hopeful, Larry Steele, is profiled by Charles Johnson. Democratic gubernatorial hopeful, Bill Fischer, gets a similar treatment today.
Bill Vaughn lambasts Bill Nooney over Nooney's support of unregulated gravel pit mining: "Like lots of Republicans, Nooney is fond of pontificating about the venality of "big government." But what he really means is that he wants to strip local governments of their minimal power over corporations so corporations can prey on people who have no one except their local governments to defend them."
(AG candidates talk DNA evidence on video at a forum - promoted by Matt Singer)
Here's the first of some video footage taken last night at the Missoula County Democrats' Central Committee meeting- this one is a question about DNA evidence and whether a full investigation should be made into all criminal convictions- similar to legislation in Illinois. All three answer the question(s)-
IF ANYONE HAS SUGGESTIONS FOR BETTER TAGS, etc., GIVE A SHOUT OUT- fair and positive- Angela
Some of my co-workers and I were out hitting people up for mail voting at the Bill Clinton speech this morning. With all the rain, it was like a scene from a Hemingway novel.
But mixing farce with whatever plotline we were in were two guys with giant signs telling people the Presidential nomination race is over and that Obama is the nominee -- in less polite terms.
I heard one Clinton supporter converse with them and it sounded to me like one of them said that they were actually Nader supporters when the woman told them that they weren't doing their candidate any favors.
There is something about operating in fundamentally bad faith in politics that really chaps my ass. And I know that probably makes me a hypocrite in some way that one of my conservative friends will be able to point out in no small time.
But, honestly -- how childish. And that goes for whether they're Nader or Obama supporters.
Here's the interview I did with Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate, and Democrat, Sam Kitzenberg.
Again, and as always, sound quality is all me, and shouldn't reflect Sam's worth as a candidate. Yes, you will hear a janitor wheel out his garbage can. My pathetic amateurishness, not Sam's.
So thanks go out to Sam for sitting down with me.
For more information, check out Sam's website, and if you're so moved, you can help him out at his ActBlue page.
I haven't got interviews with any of the other Superintendent candidates yet. Hopefully I can get some soon.
(And if you haven't yet, check out the interviews for AG candidates Steve Bullock and Mike Wheat. I interviewed Parker yesterday, so that should appear soon.)
I've written exhaustively about the myth of voter fraud, that it isn't a problem, that it's used by Republicans to discourage voters with likely Democratic leanings from going to the polls. The conservative SCOTUS rubber-stamped the practice, allowing states to address a problem that doesn't exist at the cost of chasing away a number of voters from the polls.
At the time of the court decision, Loyola law professor Rick Hasen wrote:
...I am disappointed by how cursory that opinion was in its review of the state's interest in light of the highly partisan atmosphere of election administration, and I fear that, despite the Stevens-Kennedy-Roberts' opinion's best intentions, this opinion will be read as a green light for the enactment of more partisan election laws in an attempt to skew outcomes in close elections. It is a real disappointment from that perspective.
The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.
Proving U.S. citizenship is tougher, creating a hurdle that's harder to clear. Missouri voters would likely have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers, or a passport in order to participate in an election, and a whole lot of eligible voters would likely be denied a ballot or decide in advance it's not worth the trouble.
While keeping in mind that MoveOn.org is the same organization that once ran an advertisement (in a newspaper, mind you), they've got an interesting survey out.
Now that John McCain has lost two staff members who used to represent the Burmese junta, the question is whether he'll keep on Charlie Black, his campaign chairman who used to represent Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire and Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines, or co-chair Tom Loeffler, who used to represent Saudi Arabia.
Anyways, MoveOn's survey asks, which of the following McCain should do:
Fire Black. Fire Charlie Black if he doesn't resign first.
Fire all the lobbyists. Fire Charlie Black, plus all 112 lobbyists running your campaign, including campaign co-chair Tom Loeffler, who has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a notorious human rights abuser.
Don't sweat it. The media is so sold on your "maverick" image that corrupt figures in your inner circle won't actually hurt you.
Go all in. Hire more lobbyists who've worked for evil dictators. Maybe Kim Jong-il or Idi Amin.
In an article contemplating potential VEEP picks for Obama, Will Thomas writes for Huffington Post:
[Brian Schweitzer] also doesn't bring in any delegates from his own state (though that could be offset if he helps in places like North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado).
Really? Montana isn't competitive, but Wyoming and North Dakota are?
Let's head to 538, the new election guru website for rankings.
538 pegs Obama's chance of winning North Dakota at 32% and his odds of winning Wyoming at 0%. Montana, by comparison, is 22%.
The basis for those numbers? Wyoming polls show McCain up by 20%. In ND and MT, by comparison, polls show Obama only down by 6-8%. In other words, Schweitzer would probably help make both states pretty competitive -- and he would probably do more to move numbers in Montana than in NoDak.
All that said, I'm a little less bullish on Schweitzer's chances of being tapped by Obama -- or on Schweitzer's likelihood of taking the nod.
I think it's great that we've got some lively discussions going on here around the Attorney General's race. Jay is set to interview John Parker today and will hopefully get that interview and transcript posted soon. Once that happens, I'll tinker with some way to have both the longer interviews and the endorsement posts located prominently on the site for the time leading up to the primary.
But let me also say this -- every once in a while, I read a comment from one or another candidate's backer that reminds me too much of the weird crap from the Presidential race. Frankly, all three of the Democratic candidates are extremely good candidates. Extremely good. Like extremely good to the point that the Democratic Party should be excited if even just one of the three had filed.
So we've got a wealth of riches.
And, unfortunately, I think a lot of voters are just now tuning into the race. So for supporters out there, here's my advice: stay positive. Let people know what's good about your own candidate. Especially in a three way race, when I see candidate X (or X's supporters) knocking candidate Y over something silly, I just become more inclined to either support candidate Y or Z.
Now, I've already cast my ballot (for Ron Paul, Bob Kelleher, and Tim Fox), but I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment.
This is also why I think this whole write up endorsement posts and get them promoted to the frontpage is cool, we won't be extending a similar offer to write up anti-endorsements and get them promoted to the frontpage.
One last thought -- there are also contested primaries for Governor, Superintendent, and a number of legislative races. Anyone want to take a side and make their case? Post away -- we'll give you the space.
